No, we would be my response. But it is a product of its times.
Because the question was raised in the previous post and because I didn't want the topic to go astray, I promised to offer folk a chance to talk about Paul and sexism in another post. I thought I'd expand the question beyond just Paul, because there is certainly material in the Bible that can sound pretty bad to modern ears.
I'll start with the writings attributed to Paul, which say (among other things):
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
1 Cor 11: 3
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Cor 14:34-35
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it...
Eph 5:22-25
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1 Tim 2:11-13
And Peter weighed in on women, too...
Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives...
1 Peter 3:1
Additionally, we have OT laws and stories that are sometimes just plain offensive to modern ears.
From Adam and Eve:
"...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
Gen 3:16
To some other stories, like where Lot has angels visiting his home and the men of Sodom want to gang rape them and Lot offers his daughters to the men of Sodom instead (!!!) - found in Gen 19 - to some of the laws, such as this one...
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Exodus 21: 7
Women of the day (Old Testament and New) were chattel, they weren't citizens, they didn't have rights. The Bible reflects this reality.
Now, this is not a topic that I've studied a lot, but just from what I've read, I'm willing to accept that the Bible is a document of its patriarchal, pre-modern times and realize that, yes, back then, women weren't treated right. But even in that context, we see hints of God's more egalitarian ways shining through. In Christ, there is no "male" or "female," we see Jesus talking to and treating women as equals, we see women leadership in OT and NT stories.
So, my answer to the larger question - is God sexist? - an absolute No. But the Bible does tell stories that reflect the mores of the day. As long as we don't try to take those sexist/misogynistic attitudes as literally applying to how we interact as humans today (ie, women remain silent in church, the man is the "head" or master of women, selling our daughters, etc), and embrace the God-given liberty and equality for all, then I think we're okay.
But what do you think?
112 comments:
See, this shows the impossibility of discussing this topic in the brief space of these posts. "Head" (kephale) did not mean "master " or anything similar in NT Greek. It meant "source," like "head of a river." Paul was referring back to the Adam/Eve story and saying that, just as man was (originally) the source of woman, so ever since woman was the source of man. He was undermining sexism, not supporting it.
In the Corinthian correspondence, Paul is sometimes quoting others whom his arguments are designed to refute.
There are passages in the Bible that reflect sexist times and perspectives, but Paul is trying to convey a radical egalitarianism that was soon lost. This has been lost in centuries of sexist interpretation and even translations.
Dan, I appreciate your posting this entry, and I appreciate your making your position that you do not take the Bible's clear teachings on patriarchy as authoritative. What still isn't clear is the argument for your position.
The culture at the time was patriarchal, and the Bible's worldview is patriarchal, but it does not logically follow that the former caused the latter.
The fact is, many of the cultures surrounding ancient Israel -- including the Babylonians and the Egyptians -- also esteemed charity for the poor, but you treat the Bible's commendation of charity as an authoritative divine revelation. You're selective about when the mores matter, and it's not clear whether you have any good justification for being selective.
You write that in the Bible egalitarianism sometimes shines through:
In Christ, there is no "male" or "female," we see Jesus talking to and treating women as equals, we see women leadership in OT and NT stories.
Jesus Christ treated women with respect, certainly, but He didn't treat men and women as interchangeable: He chose the Twelve, and He chose only men.
And, about there being no male or female in Christ, I believe the argument is weak that, therefore, they do not have different roles in the church or in the family.
One counter-argument to that claim is to note the context of the similar passage in Romans. To review, here's what Paul wrote in Galatians 3:23:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Here's a similar, specifically ethnic claim in Romans 10:12:
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him.
But it's worth noting that Paul wrote, in the very same letter, that salvation, judgment, and glory comes "to the Jew first" and then to the Greek (Rom 1:16, 2:9-10)
And it's worth noting that Paul believes that salvation will come to all Jews when all Gentiles who will be saved, are saved:
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." - Romans 11:25-27
In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, and yet the two groups have different roles in history.
Is it absurd to believe that it might be the case that, while there is no male or female in Christ, the two sexes have different roles in the church or in the family? It certainly isn't absurd, especially in light of Paul's own writings about the differences between men and women.
A difference between Christianity and any other religion is the concept of humility. Social empowerment is not found in the Bible.
It is incorrect to take 1 Cor 11 without taking 1 Cor 14. When woman serve there husbands AND husbands love there wives as Christ loved the Church then they will both serve each other and like Christ put the church in front of his own life so will a husband but the wife and family in front of his own life.
The key word is "AND" when a wife serves her husband yet he does not love her as Christ loved the church (in sacrifice) it will end badly just as when a husband loves a wife as Chris loved the church yet his wife cannot serve him then it will also end badly.
Well, I think this is preposterous on its face: "Social empowerment is not found in the Bible."
Every follower of Jesus was a poor dude fromn the wrong wide of the tracks who was empowered to carry the Gospel into all the world -- that's pretty empowered.
Gentils were empowered to enjoy the love of God.
Unclean were made clean.
Take a blind an t come away from any reading that doesn't conclude that the marginalized were the very core of Jesus's life, and that the whole point was to demarginalize them.
And Paul gets a bad rap. Creature of his culture, yes, but radically inclusive spiritually speaking. Peter, too.
In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, and yet the two groups have different roles in history.
Is it absurd to believe that it might be the case that, while there is no male or female in Christ, the two sexes have different roles in the church or in the family?
There ARE different roles. We all have different roles. What I'm saying is that there are not uniquely female roles in the church - or ought not be - and I think that because of what the Bible says (providing examples of women leaders, women preachers, women deacons, etc).
Just as it would ridiculous to claim that any Jews or Gentiles who are a part of church ought to have unique roles (no Jews can serve as pastor, but they ought to learn in submission and if they have questions, ask the Gentiles later...) in the church, so too, for women or men.
Bubba said:
I appreciate your making your position that you do not take the Bible's clear teachings on patriarchy as authoritative. What still isn't clear is the argument for your position.
Please, let's stick to what I've actually said, Bubba - we're doing pretty well in that regards here lately...
I make my position that I don't believe that the Bible teaches patriarchy - I'm not "rejecting the Bible's 'clear' teachings on patriarchy as authoritative." I'm rejecting your interpretation of the Bible's teachings as being supportive of patriarchy.
As to WHY I don't agree with your interpretation, as noted, there are examples of women preachers, prophets, deacons, leaders in the OT and NT. For me to embrace that Paul's teaching for women not to be preachers would require that I reject the Bible's clear teaching that there WERE and ARE women preachers. There is an apparent conflict within the Bible where some verses seem to say that women are not to have certain roles and other verses support women having those same roles.
You appear to resolve these apparent conflicts by rejecting the examples of women preachers, prophets, deacons (or tell me how you resolve it, that's how it appears to me). I resolve it by assuming that Paul (as Michael suggested) was dealing with some specific situation in some specific location and time. For some reason, certain women in Corinth were not to preach or have roles of authority. But that does not change the biblical reality that their are examples of women prophets, leaders, preachers and deacons.
And I'm short on time, if you are unaware of these verses, I'll provide them later or you can google it.
Quickly, slavery would be another useful area to look at as a measure.
No where in the Bible does anyone come out against slavery. In general, it is approved of, with the caveat that the masters ought treat slaves well. With "women in submission" or slavery, neither is talked about a great deal, but where it is actively talked about, it seems to support slavery and women in submission (slavery, moreso than women in submission, but still).
SEEMS to.
But clearly, from the direction of scripture overall and what we know of God's character, we know that without one single doubt, slavery is an abomination to the human condition. I assume that, despite the Bible's "clear teaching" on slavery, we are in agreement on this point.
The biblical passages where one would draw an opposition to slavery are more oblique than the ones that can be counted in favor of slavery. Passages like "in Christ, there is no slave nor free one...," and other passages that talk about how we are to treat one another, about justice, about mercy, about community, about opposition to oppression - even though they don't specifically speak against slavery, we can rightly infer that these passages represent God's nature and that to support slavery is, indeed, abominable. And again, DESPITE what the Bible's "clear teachings" are on slavery.
Just because there are some biblical passages that talk supportively of slavery does not mean we ought to embrace slavery.
Similarly, with women in leadership roles and how men and women interact in general. Just because there are a few passages that sound as if the author is speaking in favor of women being in a submissive role to men does not mean that we ought to embrace women as submissive.
Indeed, the Bible's OTHER clear teachings would have us standing strongly opposed to such actions (rejecting the treating of women as chattel or second class citizens or of not being able to teach) just as strongly as we oppose slavery.
Having the best pastor in the world at my church (who happens to be a woman) who has out-preached any of the hundreds of male preachers I've ever heard (including the likes of Billy Graham, Leonard Ravenhill and other great preachers) is stark testimony of the ability of women to teach just about anyone they damn well want to teach.
We ought not let our upbringing cause us to want to try to limit God.
In other words, both slavery and women in submission to men were products of their time and that is reflected in the Bible. This does not mean that we ought to expect women to be submissive to men today any more than we ought to expect slaves to do as a master says.
Dan, when you write that some OT passages "are sometimes just plain offensive to modern ears," without defending those passages as authoritative, and when you write that the Bible reflects "sexist/misogynistic attitudes" and other mores that you imply we should reject, it's not clear to me that you do embrace those passages as authoritative.
I apologize if I misunderstood your position, but I would appreciate it if you made your position more clear on whether you accept those offensive-sounding passages as authoritative revelations from God or mere reflections of the mores of the times.
There ARE different roles. We all have different roles. What I'm saying is that there are not uniquely female roles in the church - or ought not be - and I think that because of what the Bible says (providing examples of women leaders, women preachers, women deacons, etc).
To be clear, are you also saying that there are not uniquely male roles in the church, either?
The spiritual empowerment that comes with following Christ and Social empowerment that comes from following the world are two very different things. Man or woman I suggest you seek the first because you cannot have both.
other mores that you imply we should reject, it's not clear to me that you do embrace those passages as authoritative.
I think the Bible in these passages were authoritative to whatever message Paul was writing to the Corinthians, et al, at the time.
Do you think the passages citing women preachers, deacons, prophets, leaders are authoritative?
One difference between us is that I don't think the Bible is a magic book (not saying you do). I think that some passages - like the ones dealing with slavery - are very much a product of their times. They do not reflect modern mores. They reflect the mores and traditions of the time. These are mores and traditions that we know today to be unacceptable.
It would be blasphemous to tell a slave today that God wants them to be submissive to their masters; to be "good little slaves so you can go to heaven when you die." What an affront to God to present something like that today as a good teaching!
We are agreed upon this, I suppose?
Assuming so, just because neither of us think that those old slavery-endorsing passages are apt for modern ears does not mean we reject the scriptures, right? Just that we reject that 1st century application in our modern context.
Or do you look at it some other way?
To be clear, are you also saying that there are not uniquely male roles in the church, either?
Some of the best janitors I've ever met were men. But no, I don't think that's a uniquely male role.
To be clear, I do not think there are uniquely male roles in church. Not from a biblical point of view, anyway.
I know some faith traditions DO have uniquely male roles, but they do so from a distorted view of biblical teaching, by rejecting clear teachings of women in leadership roles.
when you write that the Bible reflects "sexist/misogynistic attitudes" and other mores that you imply we should reject, it's not clear to me that you do embrace those passages as authoritative.
It also might depend upon what you mean by "authoritative." Do you mean that the passages defending slavery or misogyny mean we need to defend slavery or misogyny today? Hell, no.
Do I think they are, as the Bible puts it, "useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness"? Yes. But not if taken as always literally applying to today.
Again, I suppose you would join me in rebuking anyone who used the slavery passages (and their very clear teachings) to defend keeping a slave in their basement or the "selling your daughter" passages to defend doing just that, right? Such literal applications of clear biblical teaching are an affront to God's Word. I hope you'd agree.
Dan, I think the Bible is clear that we are to submit to the authorities in our lives, serving them as if we were serving God directly. There are obvious limits -- Daniel refused to worship the king, and the Apostles refused to be silent about the Resurrection -- but this biblical instruction isn't limited only to authorities that are wholly legitimate, who behave charitably and whose authority derives from wholly just social structures.
I disagree with a lot of how you put this:
It would be blasphemous to tell a slave today that God wants them to be submissive to their masters; to be "good little slaves so you can go to heaven when you die." What an affront to God to present something like that today as a good teaching!
Most especially, I reject salvation by works, but I don't think it's blasphemous to believe that we should serve those who have authority over us even in unjust situations.
I don't understand this statement:
One difference between us is that I don't think the Bible is a magic book (not saying you do).
If you're not saying I do, how is this a "difference between us"?
And about your denial of their being any uniquely male roles in the church, I would love to see what you have to say about the most notable exception to that rule, seen in the very founding of the Christian church.
Most especially, I reject salvation by works, but I don't think it's blasphemous to believe that we should serve those who have authority over us even in unjust situations.
? I didn't say anything about salvation by works.
And what I'm saying is blasphemous is for us to suggest that slaves should just be good slaves if they find themselves in that situation. Instead, what we should be doing is working WITH the slaves to free them, to stand opposed to oppression.
Now, in Paul's situation, the time may not have been right to actively stand opposed to slavery as it was so thoroughly a part of the times. In that context, it may have made sense to tell slaves to "be good slaves." Today, to say that would be a horror.
You disagree?
I don't understand this statement:
One difference between us is that I don't think the Bible is a magic book (not saying you do).
If you're not saying I do, how is this a "difference between us"?
Sorry, that would be an instance of me starting to go down one road and getting sidetracked. Just ignore it for now.
I would love to see what you have to say about the most notable exception to that rule, seen in the very founding of the Christian church.
? And what, praytell, do you believe this to be?
And still I want to know what you do with passages that speak of women prophets (one who speaks truth - could be referred to as a preacher, too), women deacons, women leaders? Are you not familiar with these passages?
Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla and Phoebe are all women leaders, prophets, deacons. Philip "had four unmarried daughters who prophesied."
Joel 2: 28-29
"And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
Repeated by Peter in the book of Acts.
Again, why ignore these passages and ones like them? In a society that was admittedly patriarchal and condescending of women, it is all the more significant that women show up in leadership roles in the church and in the Bible.
How many of the Twelve were women?
None.
How many men birthed the Son of God?
How many women disciples did Jesus have?
How many homes of women did Jesus visit?
How many women leaders are mentioned specifically in the bible?
How many women leaders are referred to in passing (not by name) in the Bible?
How many women deacons are mentioned in the bible?
How many women prophets are referred to in the Bible?
What's your point?
Don't forget Junia.
If God was willing to use a freakin' ass to speak truth to power back then, he is certainly willing to use a women in the pulpit now.
As far as the 12. I don't know. Perhaps there were, in reality, more than 12. Women weren't exactly given much prominence or respect in those days. In the feeding of the "5,000...those "5,000" were men. Women and children were included, but only as a sidenote. So, in reality, more than 5,000 were fed. There were women among the "followers" of Jesus, but they were a sidenote as well, but folowers none-the-less.
Plus, Jesus clearly put the notion of priority seating to rest.
I'm not sure how much a sidenote women were in Jesus' story. Again, keeping in mind the culture - that Jewish men weren't even supposed to speak to women in public - Jesus spoke with quite a few women.
He had what appears to be a fairly intimate relationship (get your minds out of the gutter, anyone) with Mary and Martha and their brother; was quite close to his mother and Mary Magdalene; that he took time to discuss theology with the woman at the well (a hated Samaritan, at that!!), that his church had many women in leadership roles, etc, etc... given all of that IN THAT CULTURE, I'm thinking that it speaks pretty highly of the inclusive, progressive, radical, feminist nature of the early church.
And who is Junia, Marty?
Educate me, o Wise Woman, for I am quite able to learn from a woman, a man or an ass, but I repeat myself...
Greet Andronicus and Junias (Junia) my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
Romans 16:7
Well, there you have it. I overlooked Junia, THE APOSTLE! Not one of "the Twelve," but according to the Word of God, an apostle nonetheless.
Dang ol' Bible, always interfering with my favorite traditions...
Unfortunately once again, this ends up being just another debate about whether a particular situation described in the Bible is descriptive or proscriptive.
Jesus picks 12 men as his disciples. Did he simply pick 12 people who all happened to be male (descriptive) or was he making a point about how things should be set up under all-male leadership (proscriptive)? Unfortunately the Bible doesn't tell us, and so it seems to me that one has to "add to the Bible" in order to make a description into a rule for how we're supposed to order the Church. (This is especially true when we have so many other examples of women's leadership roles in the early Church elsewhere in the NT.)
Adding human beliefs to the Bible, instead of being content to simply read what is on the page, is never a good thing. It is typically done simply to conform to current cultural ideas (and yes, in many parts of Christianity, instilling such sexism into the church is indeed part of that particular sexist culture.)
So no, neither the Bible nor God is sexist, but there's no question that plenty of people are.
Junia: The First Woman Apostle
Regarding women as sidenotes. I know Jesus didn't consider them as such. I was just making the point that women were not counted in the 5,000. So they may not have been counted among the 12 either.
Good points, all. Thanks, Marty and Alan.
Edwin stated earlier that "Social empowerment is not found in the Bible."
ER rightly pointed out that was a load of hooey. Edwin replied:
The spiritual empowerment that comes with following Christ and Social empowerment that comes from following the world are two very different things.
Empowerment is defined, "the giving or delegation of power; authority"
Anytime someone is empowered to be the best human they can be, that is of God. If a slave is empowered by being able to speak of his/her dignity as a human and natural rights NOT to be enslaved, that is of God.
If a woman is empowered to be a pastor or a doctor or scientist or day care worker because that is what God has called her to be, that is of God.
Empowerment that gives folk the authority to be fully human, with all the dignity, rights and responsibilities that implies is a good thing and all good things come from God. Even if it is characterized as "social empowerment."
I'd hope Edwin could agree with such an idea.
I suppose that one could make the case that someone has been empowered to do evil (a child has been given a gun and told it's okay to go kill a bully or some such), THAT sort of empowerment would be bad, and all of us here would gladly say as much.
But I don't know of anyone whatsoever that talks about empowerment in those terms.
I say all of that because there is this constant danger of spiritualizing God away until God means nothing. It was the heresy of the gnostics, if I'm not mistaken.
The separation of "spiritual empowerment" (being empowered spiritually) from "Social empowerment" (being empowered to do normal things in the real world) comes too close to suggesting that God only cares about the soul and that the body means nothing. The Eternal is important, the temporal is nothing.
God is a God that cares about our suffering today. Here. Now.
God is a God that would have followers who act in opposition to suffering and oppression today. Here. Now.
Seems to me.
And again, I'd hope Edwin would agree.
Dan, I don't at all believe that women were a "sidenote" to Jesus, only that it's very presumptuous to conclude that Jesus intended that the church He founded have no specific roles for men or women, when the twelve He personally chose to build that church were all men.
It seems that -- never mind Alan's supposed position about how we shouldn't add to the Bible -- you seem more willing to believe that women were among the Twelve, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, than to consider the possibility that Jesus had a reason to choose only men when He chose His twelve.
Umm....there were no women among the 12. No one here is disputing that.
Marty, it seems to me that you just wrote that, perhaps like the women and children who weren't counted among the 5,000 men who were fed, women "may not have been counted among the 12 either."
As far as the 12. I don't know. Perhaps there were, in reality, more than 12.
Maybe I'm not summarizing your speculation precisely: would it be more accurate to say that you think that when Jesus picked "the Twelve" who repeatedly referenced as such, He really picked some N+12 Apostles, where N is the number of women among those Christ specifically chose as His closest followers, who were never numbered and never named?
Ummm... Marty is correct. That is why I answered, "None," when you asked how many women were among the Twelve.
So how about answering a few of my questions, Brother Bubba?
What do you do with all the mentions of women leaders found within the pages of the Bible.
And Alan is absolutely right. You are asking us to add something that is not found in the Bible. To assume that, because Jesus selected 12 men to be the original twelve disciples, that this is some sort of indication that women shouldn't be ministers.
What of the women that God DID select to be ministers? To be teachers? To be judges? To be apostles? To be prophets? To be deacons?
Shall we assume that those passages are less important or valid than the ones where Paul was writing to specific people in specific situations?
And what of slavery? We reject vehemently the notion that slavery is a moral norm. Why do we do this when the Bible doesn't do so?
Dialog with me, brother. Come, let us reason.
"Marty, it seems to me that you just wrote that, perhaps like the women and children who weren't counted among the 5,000 men who were fed, women "may not have been counted among the 12 either."
Perhaps I should have said women were not counted among the 12 either. My bad.
"would it be more accurate to say that you think that when Jesus picked "the Twelve" who repeatedly referenced as such, He really picked some N+12 Apostles, where N is the number of women among those Christ specifically chose as His closest followers, who were never numbered and never named?"
Junia was an Apostle, but not counted among the 12. I have no way of knowing how many women there were not counted among the 12. I wasn't there. But yes, I believe it to be possible that there were women who were not counted among the 12.
Now how about answering Dan's questions.
"It seems that -- never mind Alan's supposed position about how we shouldn't add to the Bible"
ROFL. I'm pretty sure the canon is set, Bubba. You may disagree and want to add to it, but I think you're in a minority there in this discussion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bubba wrote, "when the twelve He personally chose to build that church were all men."
Please find me one verse that demonstrates this is proscriptive and not descriptive.
And, since we have already shown women being named as apostles in the NT, please argue (again, using actual Scripture, not something you've made up) how that was against against Jesus' wishes, even though it is contained in the NT.
Finally, even if we conceded your erroneous belief that there were never any female apostles in the early church, please describe (again, using Scripture) how your point is even relevant because Jesus is not, as far as I'm aware, appointing new Apostles these days. Ministers, elders, and deacons, yes...but new Apostles? No. So even if that is an boys-only job I still don't think you actually have a point.
To be clear, Alan, I agree with the position that the canon is set. What I question is the consistency with which you apply that position to this particular discussion.
For instance, you write, regarding the choosing of the Twelve:
Please find me one verse that demonstrates this is proscriptive and not descriptive.
And, since we have already shown women being named as apostles in the NT, please argue (again, using actual Scripture, not something you've made up) how that was against against Jesus' wishes, even though it is contained in the NT.
Your position seems to be this:
- Christ chose only men when He chose the Twelve, but that's presumed to be only descriptive.
- The early church chose men and women to serve in various roles, and that's presumed to be descriptive and prescriptive.
If I have the burden of proof in demonstrating that the former is more than descriptive, surely you have the same burden in demonstrating the same for the latter.
You criticize as adding to Scripture the conclusion that some passage is more than descriptive, but only when it's a passage that doesn't reinforce your particular position.
Soooo, are you ignoring the passages that talk about women leaders?
If so, then I disagree with that sort of discounting of biblical teaching.
And, why do we acknowledge the horror of slavery (even though it is endorsed biblically) for what it is? How is slavery different than misogyny or sexism?
Dan, I do not deny that the New Testament clearly records that women served in some positions of leadership; I do not deny that there is overlap between the roles of men and women in the church. What I deny is that the Bible requires complete overlap, an essentially androgynous approach to church roles. Again, Christ hand-picked His twelve closest apostles, and none of them were women. And, in I Timothy 3, Paul's description of the qualifications of a pastor appear to presume that the role is filled by a man; unless I'm mistaken, the word episkope is never applied to a woman in the New Testament.
You ask, "How is slavery different than misogyny or sexism?"
This is unacceptable question-begging, presuming a guilty verdict of misogyny or sexism for patriarchy, or even for the belief that the sexes are complimentary rather than interchangeable.
In the Bible, women could be sold and this was not opposed by the authors.
In the Bible, women were told that if they had a question in church, they had to ask their husbands later.
This strikes some as misogynistic and sexist. How does it strike you?
Do you think women should be silent in church and if they have questions, ask their husbands later?
"But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church."
Is that what you think? How does that play out in your perfect church? Do women not get to speak in business meetings? Offer prayer requests?
I mean, that's the literal take on these passages. Is that really what you think?
Bubba said:
I do not deny that the New Testament clearly records that women served in some positions of leadership; I do not deny that there is overlap between the roles of men and women in the church. What I deny is that the Bible requires complete overlap, an essentially androgynous approach to church roles.
So, what do you think about roles, then? I'm not sure of your position.
Are you saying they CAN speak in church, but they can't be a head pastor? Can they be the music leader? Can they be deacons as indicated in the Bible?
What exactly is your position on women in church and why?
"Your position seems to be this:
- Christ chose only men when He chose the Twelve, but that's presumed to be only descriptive."
No, I don't presume anything. In the absence of any other information I don't think it would be possible to decide whether or not the choosing of 12 Apostles who are only men is either descriptive or proscriptive. The best that either of us could make (as you are doing) is an argument from silence. That supports neither your argument nor mine. However, it is not the case that we do not have any other information, as has already been clearly shown. Thus, I do believe that your position is incorrect based on clear Scriptural evidence for female apostles.
"- The early church chose men and women to serve in various roles, and that's presumed to be descriptive and prescriptive."
Actually again it assumes neither proscription nor description. However, since there is, as I'd assume you'd realize, no other option other than male or female and we have a clear NT record of both men AND women serving in various roles in the early church, this objection of yours is specious. It doesn't have to be either descriptive or proscriptive since there are no other options, unless you're trying to make the argument that if this is only descriptive then we can ordain dogs. I'll be glad to concede that there is no Biblical evidence for the ordination of animals. LOL
So then, my position is completely consistent and is based on Scriptural evidence. It is your position that is inconsistent and ignores clear Scriptural evidence.
To Alan...
Completely devoid of snark...
My teachers have always called "Apostles" as anyone called by Jesus Himself; someone has seen Him, and heard his literal voice in "the Calling." But Disciples are different. Everyone called to salvation by God [given to His son as a bride] are disciples. Everyone who is "saved" is called to be a disciple, but only the "Twelve" were "Apostles"
Not according to the Word of God, Eric.
Greet Andronicus and Junias (Junia) my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
Romans 16:7
So, Eric, how about you?
How does the Bible and gender roles play out in your ideal church? I'm curious.
Do you think that women can be deacons and prophets (as clearly listed in the Bible), but it's just that they can't be preachers? What about assistant pastors? What about music leaders? Sunday School directors? Teachers?
Or do you go so far as to think they ought to be literally silent, as Paul suggests? If they have questions about theology, they should just ask their husbands when they get home? And if they don't have husbands, wait until they're married or ask one of her married girlfriends to ask her husband?
I'm just wanting to know. Especially the "silent" part and the deacon part, since women deacons are clearly biblical, what do the churches that don't allow women deacons do with those verses?
While I realize that's the colloquial understanding of the term "Apostle" in some circles, EL, I'm just going by what the Bible actually says.
It seems to me that the Greek word apostolos was sometimes used in the New Testament specifically to reference the Twelve -- as in Luke 6 -- and sometimes used much more broadly, as in I Corinthians 15:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
But it's unnecessary to conclude that every reference to the word means the same group, that a reference to Junias (who may or may not have been a woman) as an apostle means that Junias had the same status as the Twelve who were chosen in particular, and whose choosing was recorded as a significant event in the Gospels.
But what I wonder is why Dan finds that passage of the Bible so important and references it as the word of God when he's so quick to dismiss so much of the Bible as atrocity, error, irrelevancy, and -- now -- misogyny.
Words have meanings, Bubba. We can't come across an atrocious act and say, "well, it happens in the Bible so it's not REALLY an atrocious act."
So, I ask again, Bubba what do you think about roles, then? I'm not sure of your position.
Are you saying they CAN speak in church, but they can't be a head pastor? Can they be the music leader? Can they be deacons as indicated in the Bible?
What exactly is your position on women in church and why?
I also wonder if you are going to make the argument that when the word "homosexual" pops up a couple of times in the Bible, that it MEANS homosexual (even though the translators wouldn't make that claim), but when "Apostle" pops up, that it means something else?
Thanks for the verse, Bubba, just more evidence for my point of view.
"But what I wonder is why Dan finds that passage of the Bible so important and references it as the word of God when he's so quick to dismiss so much of the Bible as atrocity, error, irrelevancy, and -- now -- misogyny."
Pot, meet kettle. The irony here is hilarious. Bubba is basically saying, "I'm going to ignore all the references to apostles that weren't the 12 -- some of whom had women's names -- because I don't like them, but I'll criticize Dan for what I see as the exact same propensity. In other words, I'm going to admit I do it too, but criticize someone else for doing it too." LOL I'm not sure, but is that the ol' "I'm rubber you're glue" defense? Or is that "I know you are but what am I?" I get those confused.
At least now Dan we'll never have to hear Bubba complain about how you ignore clear and obvious parts of the Bible just because you don't like them. At least this conversation with him has some benefit!
(Oh, and Dan, the word "homosexual" never occurs in the Bible.)
Not to chase rabbits, but the word "homosexuals" appears in a couple of places in the NASB version. And perhaps one or two times in other versions.
Of course, you and I both know that the word the translators translated "homosexual" is not the Greek word for homosexual, but rather some terms they're unclear of. But still, it does appear and we have reason to question the translation.
Which brings us back to, Is there any reason for us NOT to translate "apostle" to mean "apostle" in the case of Junia?
I have no problems whatsoever with studying the context and language involved in biblical studies and further realize that to reject a particular translation as inferior is not the same as "dismissing" God's word. It's studying God's Word, the Bible, in search of God's Living Word to us today.
And Alan, be nice to Bubba. We're having a decent conversation here with fewer accusations and misrepresentations. Just a more regular study and discussion - mostly free of rancor and bitterness - and I'm thankful to Bubba for that.
Nice? That was nice. :)
Sorry Bubba. But the point stands even without the humor. Accusing someone of doing something you're acknowledging that you're also doing isn't really much of an argument.
So, rather than devolving the discussion to dueling accusations of hypocrisy, perhaps you can provide actual scriptural evidence for why the word apostle only means apostle when you think it means apostle. I'd love to read it.
(Dan, if a bunch of Greeks writing the NT wanted to use the Greek word "homosexual" they could have. After all, they clearly used the Greek word "apostolos" for Apostle. The word "homosexual" never appears in the Bible.)
I heard what you said as nice, but teasing. I just wasn't sure Bubba would.
And point taken on "homosexual." The Greek word certainly never appears in the Bible.
Alan, my position isn't that we should ignore the references to others beside the 12 as "apostles", but simply that we should attempt to reconcile all the passages of the Bible -- the clear and the difficult -- because it is all authoritative and inerrant, every book, from beginning to end, on every subject that it touches. It does appear that the word is sometime used as synonymous with the Twelve, and sometimes as a different grouping.
Unless I'm sorely mistaken -- more in a moment -- I believe that it is in only the most superficial level that Dan and I do the same thing: we don't obey every literal command in the Bible.
But the difference is stark when you compare what we do instead. I accept that every verse is inspired, authoritative, and inerrant, and I don't obey every verse in a literal mechanistic fashion because I'm trying -- however imperfectly -- to understand the underlying principles of every verse in order to reconcile them all into one cogent picture. What Dan seems to do is to dismiss as error (as atrocity, as irrelevancy, as bigotry) verses he doesn't like.
On the one hand is an attempt to see how the Bible presents a perfectly harmonious message. On the other hand is an attempt to abridge the Bible to make it fit an extrabiblical worldview. There is nothing hypocritical about people who do the former and criticize the latter.
Dan, I think the more important question isn't the particulars of one's position regarding the roles of men and women in the church, but one's approach to all those passage that touch on the subject.
Personally, I think it's clear that the church found in the New Testament did have important roles for women, but I think it's also clear that there wasn't complete overlap between men's roles and women's roles.
Let me emphasize: Reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable, and spiritually maturing Christians CAN disagree on precisely how a present-day congregation should reconcile these two principles from the New Testament.
My problem with you, Dan, isn't that we seem to reconcile the principles differently, but that you discard one principle in favor of the other. In championing one principle from the Bible, you reject the other as the detritus of cultural mores rather than wrestle with it as divine revelation.
Let us not forget the comment of yours that prompted my comment that led to this blog entry:
A straightforward read makes it appear that Paul was a sexist, insensitive, homophobic, condescending, patriarchal pig.
And, given the culture in which he sprung, doubtless some of that is true. [emphasis mine]
So far as I can tell, there's no attempt on your part to reconcile Paul's writing on the role of women in the church with the rest of Scripture. With your repeated questions about the details of my position, you don't seem to be criticizing a particular approach at reconciling the passages: you seem to disparage any attempt to reconcile the passages.
I could mistaken. If you really do think Paul's commands regarding women in the church is divine revelation that we should take seriously -- even if we don't apply the command in a rote, mechanistic manner and instead seek to understand the underlying principles and seek to reconicle the commands with the references to women serving in important roles in other congregations -- then I apologize for misunderstanding your position.
As it is, I find it particularly funny that, regarding claims of atrocity and misogyny, you write that words have meanings. Jesus Christ affirmed the authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and that doesn't seem to have any impact on your rather enthusiastic pruning of the Bible.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thanks for the clarification, Bubba.
And we agree on a few things. I also believe, as is the orthodox Reformed view of Biblical interpretation, that Scripture interprets Scripture. And, as a dyed in the wool Calvinist, I believe that the Bible is inspired, authoritative and infallible.
So then, you can then understand why I'd like to see some actual Scriptural evidence for your opinion, rather than just a restatement of your opinion.
Again, where exactly does the Bible itself clearly and unambiguously support your view that the word "apostle" has the different and specific meanings you are applying in those various instances? I'd also like to see how you explain (using Scripture) the various verses we've already quoted. Without such Scriptural evidence (which you have not presented) then perhaps you might understand why I believe that simply relying on your unsupported opinion is not really evidence that you are, in fact, attempting to see how the Bible presents a perfectly harmonious message but are instead simply attempting to abridge the Bible to make it fit an extrabiblical worldview.
That is so true Dan.
The culture of the day is very evident in the Scriptures. If we are to adhere to that same culture today, then we all know what the plight of women would be. They along with their children would be no-counts. And of course, slavery would still be allowed, among other cultural practices of the day.
I happen to believe Jesus delivered us from those demons. The most dramatic deliverance was the fact He chose a woman to proclaim the good news "He is risen".
And thanks to him we don't adhere to that backward culture anymore and so to try and hang on to parts of it and not the whole is just hypocritical and ridiculous in my opinion. To be quite frank....it's stupid.
God can call who He wills. Be it male, female, or ass.
Bubba, I would suggest that knowing how you and your church prefer to deal with women would be helpful to the conversation. Or, if your church isn't "doing it right," how your ideal church would deal with women.
Dan, I don't think the details of my position on the roles of men and women in the church is all that germane, first, because I've stated that I think the more important issue is whether we're both trying to reconcile all the passages of the Bible, not the differences that may or may not result from the attempt. Second, as I made abundantly clear I believe the following: Reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable, and spiritually maturing Christians CAN disagree on precisely how a present-day congregation should reconcile these [sex-related] principles from the New Testament.
(What I do think would be helpful to this discussion is dropping the implication that some in this discussion believe the Bible is a "magical" book. That is the sort of derogatory language I expect from strident atheists.)
If we both took the Bible as inerrant and tried to reconcile all its passages because we both believe that every passage is an authoritative and infallible revelation from God, the details of our parallel attempts to reconcile would be more important.
As it is, in denying inerrancy, you give yourself the authority to discard difficult passages as error, irrelevancy, atrocity, or bigotry.
You invoke the word, but what you're doing doesn't qualify as "reconciling" when you write, "I have wrestled with the divine revelation and reconciled it by acknowledging the reality of the Bible's imperfect human authors and their settings."
One can -- and should -- acknowledge that the books of the Bible cover a variety of genres, address different audiences in different circumstances, and even involve two different (but closely related) covenants between God and man.
But reconciliation means that you treat every passage as having the same origin, as coming from the same Voice.
If you think that Passage 1 is the result of human imperfections and Passage 2 is an authoritative revelation from God, you're not attempting to reconcile the two. You're attempting to filter out the one to prefer the other.
While you may not find your position on women's roles germane to the discussion of men's and women's roles and the Bible, I do. It is, after all, what we are discussing here.
It would help me to know, for instance, if you think women CAN speak in church because that tells me you don't take that particular passage literally. Or, if you think women CAN be deacons and prophets, but you don't think they can be pastors, that, too would tell me something germane to the topic at hand and about how you are interpreting the Bible.
This is the topic at hand - women's and men's roles in churches, after all - not how Dan or the Anabaptists or Alan or Bubba interprets the Bible. Although that may be related.
Further, I have to wonder why you are reluctant to share your position? It strikes me as curious.
Dan, let's go back to the comment I made, here, which prompted you to start this thread. My original criticism wasn't your particular position about the roles of men and women in the church, but the apparent flippancy with which you discarded Paul's writings on the topic, particularly compared to his writings regarding economics:
Dan, I'm not sure what justifies your being dismissive of Paul's writing concerning men and women, why you think it is "doubtless" that Paul demonstrates some combination of sexism, insensitivity, and/or homophobia.
You point to Paul's cultural background; is this background significantly different than that of Peter, James, and the rest of the New Testament writers? Was his culture not significantly shaped by the law of Moses and the rest of what we now call the Old Testament?
You write that Paul's instructions on taking care of the poor "are consistent with the whole" of the Bible. Is the same not also true with his teachings regarding men and women? Can't the same point of view be found in the account of creation; in the establishment of the covenant through Abraham and his son Isaac and Isaac's son Jacob; in the twelve tribes of Israel descending from Jacob's twelve sons; and in numerous commands within the law of the Old Covenant?
Jesus Christ emphasized that we should care for the poor, but did He not also exclusively choose men as His Apostles?
With the exception of the one passage where Paul makes clear he's offering his own opinion and not divine revelation, I know of no Biblical justification for [...] taking Paul's writing about the sexes any less seriously as his writing about the poor -- or for assuming that his writing about the one subject is any less authoritative than the other.
I deferred continuing this criticism until you created this thread. Are you now punting this topic a second time?
I wonder what it is you're hiding that you can't answer this simple question?
"Dan, let's go back to the comment I made, here, which prompted you to start this thread."
Well...uh...actually...I was the one who brought up Paul being a male chauvinist which took the discussion a bit off track from the economy.
Then Dan replied he was going to get to that. And then a little later on he asked us to get back on the economy track.
I don't think your comment prompted this thread Bubba. Looks to me like Dan was planning to do it anyway.
Oh, dear. I go away for a couple of days and look at the discussion I have missed. It is one that I have thought about all of my adult life. I'll have to read all these responses and see what y'all have been saying. One thing that I'll post now is my conclusion about the three possible states of the relationship of women and men to God. I think that people approach the answer to your question from one of these three frames of reference.
1. Both women and men are equally human in essence and existence.
2. Men and women are different therefore unequal in existence but not in essence.
3. Men and women are different, unequal, in essence (women being secondary beings) and in existence.
The logical fourth possibility is probably not a practical possibility.
Bubba stated (without yet answering a simple question for SOME reason):
If you think that Passage 1 is the result of human imperfections and Passage 2 is an authoritative revelation from God, you're not attempting to reconcile the two. You're attempting to filter out the one to prefer the other.
Yes, there does appear to be a difference in how we approach the Bible. You think (correct me if I'm wrong) that every passage in the Bible is "inerrant," without error.
The Bible does not make this claim. God no where tells us we ought to take this position. This is a position that many traditional Christians take because that's what they were taught to take. But it is an extrabiblical position to take. It is a human tradition to think that each and every verse MUST represent God's Will and God's position - at least at some point.
While I used to hold that position to (since I was raised in that human tradition and taught thusly), after further Bible study and realizing that we were placing parameters on the Bible that God did not place there, AND with the realization that to take that position (each passage must represent God's literal Will and God's position) requires some logical inconsistencies, AND realizing that God gave us our reasoning ability for a reason, I no longer hold this extrabiblical position.
Rather, I think God's Word is inspired and profitable for teaching (a claim the Bible DOES make about "scripture"), but not necessarily to be taken literally.
But when it comes down to it, our approach is similar - we both, when we come to difficult passages that are conflicting with other passages in the Bible, we BOTH have to embrace one and say that it overrules the other.
If we have a passage that says God sometimes commands people to kill children and another passage that commands us to not kill innocent people (PLUS our own God-given reason that lets us know intuitively that killing children is wrong), we have to say, Well, one of these passages does not reflect God's Will.
Now, I know you think you don't do that. What you do (correct me if I'm wrong) is try to explain away why it IS okay for God sometimes to command people to kill children, despite biblical injunctions against such atrocities.
Regardless, it means you are saying that the passage that says God commands killing children sometimes overrules the passage that says killing innocents is wrong. We have to choose.
Now, I am not rejecting those passages as not belonging in the bible. I'm just saying they don't represent God's Will or Position on killing children.
From where I sit, we approach the Bible the same way, in that regards.
" ... insofar as I think there is a wide amount of room for disagreement....
"Reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable, and spiritually maturing Christians CAN disagree on precisely how a present-day congregation should reconcile these [sex-related] principles from the New Testament."
Ugh. So this thread could have been one comment long? Why bother arguing about something that reasonable people can disagree about?
What a waste of time. Someone, I suspect, likes hearing the sound of his own keyboard clicking.
Alan, I'm not "arguing about something that reasonable people can disagree about," i.e., the role of women in the church.
I'm arguing about inerrancy. The comment you quote came with the caveat that, while I'm not primarily concerned with Dan's position on the roles of men and women in the church, I strongly disagree with the way he seems to reach that conclusion, by denying the authority of the passages he cites by chalking them up to human error.
Earlier, you wrote, "as a dyed in the wool Calvinist, I believe that the Bible is inspired, authoritative and infallible."
You and I agree on this point, but it doesn't appear that Dan does, and it is on this point that my comments have been focused. I didn't go into detail over my beliefs regarding the role of women in the church because I like hearing the keyboard click, but because Dan was repeatedly insinuating that, by focusing on the issue that is really contentious, I was hiding something.
That "anonymous" comment was mine.
--Bubba
Meh. Sorry, not buying it.
When Dan writes this, "I think the difference between us is that I acknowledge as a reality that in reconciling God's Word (the Bible) to itself, one has to set aside a literal reading of some parts of the Bible when one has two polar opposite views of God being expressed."
Is not the same as "denying the authority of the passages he cites by chalking them up to human error."
Not even remotely.
(And by the way, we still have no evidence, since you refuse to answer even the simplest of questions, that you haven't come to your own conclusions by denying the authority of the passages we've discussed. Why do you deny the authority of Scripture, Bubba?)
Alan, you qutoe Dan writing, "one has to set aside a literal reading of some parts of the Bible when one has two polar opposite views of God being expressed."
But he hasn't offered an alternative reading that affirms the passage's full divine authority; instead he invokes human imperfection, implying that he does deny its authority to some degree rather than merely reject a particular interpretation.
And by the way, we still have no evidence, since you refuse to answer even the simplest of questions, that you haven't come to your own conclusions by denying the authority of the passages we've discussed. Why do you deny the authority of Scripture, Bubba?
I don't, I don't appreciate the loaded question, and I don't appreciate the slander that I haven't been answering others' questions, as I just went into some detail explaining to Dan my position on the role of women in the church.
I'm trying to assume that you're arguing in good faith, and you're making it very difficult.
It might be worth reiterating two parts of my lenghty answer to Dan's questions about my position on the role of women in the church:
2) The Bible is clear that Jesus Christ treated women with respect and that women often had important roles in the New Testament church.
3) The Bible is not clear that men and women were treated as interchangeable, and that there was 100% overlap in their roles in the church.
I do indeed accept as authoritative the passages in the Bible were women had important roles in the early church; for a couple reasons -- including the choosing of the Twelve and the qualifications of a pastor in I Timothy 3 -- I do not believe that these fully authoritative passages imply that there must be full overlap between men's roles and women's roles.
I can't prove a negative, to prove that I'm not trying to invoke parts of the Bible to justify a preconception, and I don't have the time or inclination to begin a full exegesis, particularly with someone who seems to miss so much of what I've already written.
"I don't, I don't appreciate the loaded question, and I don't appreciate the slander that I haven't been answering others' questions, as I just went into some detail explaining to Dan my position on the role of women in the church."
You haven't offered an alternative reading of the verses we've provided that affirm those passage's full divine authority. Thus, using your own standards in this "discussion", you must deny the authority of Scripture.
" don't appreciate the slander...."
LOL Slander? Love the melodrama, and the irony. LOL. Apparently it's slander to suggest you haven't answered my question (when you haven't) but it isn't slander to repeat your same tired lie that Dan "denies the authority of scripture." You have a very peculiar definition of slander. (And slander is spoken, I think you mean libel.)
In any event, you still haven't answered my question. And you haven't offered an alternative reading that affirms those passages' full divine authority.
"I'm trying to assume that you're arguing in good faith, and you're making it very difficult."
Funny, I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't assume you're arguing in good faith at all. You concoct some reason to argue about something for 40 comments that you then say people can reasonably disagree about. Then you continue to argue about it. LOL You criticize others for behavior that you yourself do all the time (ie. slander, well, more accurately libel). You don't answer questions. You basically refuse to believe any answer given to you, repeating the shopworn "denying authority" crap, even though that lie has been addressed dozens of times in this blog.
"I don't have the time or inclination to begin a full exegesis, particularly with someone who seems to miss so much of what I've already written."
Really? That's your excuse?
Seems pretty simple to me... How do those passages that refer to apostles other than the 12, and to apostles that are women relate to other passages that seem to limit woman's work as church leaders. Yet you fail to answer that question over and over. I haven't missed anything...there's just been no real answer.
Double Meh. Now that I've thought it over for a second, just forget it, Bubba. Continuing the "conversation" such as it is, isn't worth the time as I should know by now.
I have to keep reminding myself not to get goaded into these "discussions" with folks like you (though I've been doing better lately.)
Peace.
As to female Apostles, only one is ever [supposedly] mentioned, in Romans 16. The evidence for Junia being both female, AND an apostle is ambiguous at best... whether one, the other or both depends on how you divide scripture.
From The Bible and the Ministry of Women—Part 2
"Women Leaders" & "Women Apostles" In The New Testament?, by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, PhD
Director, Public Campus Ministries, Michigan Conference.
"Junia: A “Female Apostle”?
Much is made in Women in Ministry about Junia being a “female apostle.”[9] This claim is based on the apostle Paul’s description of Andronicus and Junia as “my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me” (Romans 16:7, KJV, emphasis mine).
There are two problems in this text. First, does the name Junia have a feminine ending (proving Junia was a woman), or does it have a masculine ending (proving Junia was a man)? This is a grammatical problem arising from the Greek language. In Romans 16:7, the ending for the name of Junia in the Greek is -an, which would be the direct object (accusative) form both for men’s names that end in -as (like Elias, Zacharias, Silas, Thomas, or Cephas) or women’s names that end in -a (like Martha, Joanna, or Lydia). Therefore it is impossible to tell from the Greek ending alone whether the person described by the apostle Paul is Junias (male) or Junia (female). This explains the varied opinions among the church fathers. For example, whereas Origen (died A.D. 252) referred to the person as Junias, a man, Chrysostom (died A.D. 407) referred to this person as Junia, a woman. Church historian Epiphanius (died A.D. 403) sees the person as a man. Thus, grammatically and historically, both genders are possible.
But let’s assume that the person Paul refers to is a woman by the name Junia. Does Romans 16:7 require us to believe that Junia was a female apostle? This is the second problem confronting interpreters. The answer hinges on how one understands the phrase translated “among the apostles” (en tois apostolois). In the Greek the phrase is ambiguous. Does it mean that Andronicus and Junia were numbered among the apostles (as the NIV has it, “They are outstanding among the apostles”), or does it mean that their reputation was well known by the apostles (as the KJV puts it, they are “of note among the apostles”)?
How do we resolve a problem in which the Greek allows both interpretations? This is where one’s hermeneutical principles of interpretation are revealed. The historic Adventist approach is to (1) interpret an obscure passage by a plain passage in Scripture, and (2) look for any applicable precedents in Scripture, noting that one Scripture will never contradict another."
I don't really have a dog in this hunt. It literally doesn't matter much to me.
Alan, I think Bubba is attempting a genuine conversation here and that we're all doing the best we can despite having strong opinions and limited time to discuss things. I think this conversation has been tons better than many conversations I've taken part in here and abroad.
Bubba said:
But he [Dan] hasn't offered an alternative reading that affirms the passage's full divine authority; instead he invokes human imperfection, implying that he does deny its authority to some degree rather than merely reject a particular interpretation.
My alternative reading (and I have shared it before, I just don't think you agree with my alternative reading) is that these are stories from Israel's and church history. Period. I don't know that "the passage's full divine authority" has any great meaning. The story is a story is a story. It is inspired and has something to teach us.
It either reflects God's Will and Nature ("We ought not kill children. Period. To do so is wrong.") or it doesn't reflect God's Will and Nature ("Sometimes, it is okay to kill children.") That I don't think a story from the Bible reflects God's Will/nature is not any different than when you or others don't think a bible story reflects God's will/nature.
What do you mean by "affirm a passage's full divine authority"? That when a passage says slaves should be obedient and good slaves that this means slaves should not revolt or try to escape/end slavery, because after all, God's Word tells them to be "good slaves"?
That when a passage says that women should be silent and learn from men, be subjected to "Man's authority" that this means women should not have positions of authority over men? That when a passage talks about selling your daughter away, that this is acceptable and not an atrocity? Or was not an atrocity in that context?
That when a passage talks about God telling people to slaughter a village, down to the children but sparing the virgins so they can have them as their wives, that this reflects God's Will/Nature?
If THAT is what you mean (and I'm not saying it is) by "affirm a passage's full divine authority," then, no, I don't affirm that. And God help us if anyone thinks that to be true.
But, if you mean that this is a story told in the Bible for the purpose of instructing us - instructing us about how people in the past did things, how they thought God wanted them to address problems, about their foibles and victories, etc, then Yes, I DO affirm that passage's full divine authority.
So, perhaps it comes down to what you think "affirm a passage's full divine authority" means.
Myself, I am unconvinced that talking about the Bible in terms of "full divine authority" and "inerrant" are especially helpful. I prefer the Bible's own description of scripture that is "inspired and beneficial for teaching..." THAT makes perfect sense to me. Inerrancy and "full divine authority" are extrabiblical notions that always need some wading through to determine what folk are talking about.
Thanks for the kind words in my defense, Dan.
You repeatedly write that some passages in the Bible do not "reflect[] God's will/nature". That strikes me as an extrabiblical notion, so I don't know why it's okay to say that but not affirm inerrancy.
My problem with your approach is most noticeable when you write this:
But, if you mean that this is a story told in the Bible for the purpose of instructing us - instructing us about how people in the past did things, how they thought God wanted them to address problems, about their foibles and victories, etc, then Yes, I DO affirm that passage's full divine authority.
Nowhere does the Bible sugges that Scripture is a record of "how they thought God wanted them to address problems." The Torah isn't a record of Moses' theories about God's will, but Moses' record of what God actually revealed.
Hence, Paul's writing that all Scripture is inspired -- literally, God-breated: it's not just that the human breathes in divinity, but God breathes out His message.
It seems to me your problem isn't merely with the interpretation or implications of a particular divine command to some person or people -- e.g., whether God's instructions through Paul regarding slaves prohibits rebellion -- but with the command itself.
Asking about what I mean about divine authority, you ask:
That when a passage talks about God telling people to slaughter a village, down to the children but sparing the virgins so they can have them as their wives, that this reflects God's Will/Nature?
If a passage from the Bible clearly records that this is what God commanded, then this is what God commanded, for the audience in question and in their specific circumstances. How and whether it applies to us is another question entirely.
If you deny that the passage is an accurate record of what it claims to be -- that is, a record of what God commanded -- then you deny its authority as divine revelation.
By talking about the Bible's work in "instructing us about how people in the past... thought God wanted them to address problems," you're downgrading the Bible's authority from actual divine revelation to mere human hearsay.
Whew! There's a lot here for my feeble mind to take in.
"But, if you mean that this is a story told in the Bible for the purpose of instructing us - instructing us about how people in the past did things, how they thought God wanted them to address problems, about their foibles and victories, etc, then Yes, I DO affirm that passage's full divine authority."
This is easy to understand and I get it. It also allows me to reconcile those difficult passages and still believe the Bible to be true.
But you, Bubba, you've got me completely confused.
"If a passage from the Bible clearly records that this is what God commanded, then this is what God commanded, for the audience in question and in their specific circumstances. How and whether it applies to us is another question entirely."
If that's the case, then how in the world do we pick which applies to us today and which doesn't? Even down to the salvation story?
I prefer Dan's approach.
Quite frankly, Bubba, your approach would cause me to doubt and become Agnostic or even Athiest.
Thanks, Marty. I prefer my approach over Bubba's, as well. Realizing that both are flawed human approaches to understanding an infinite God.
Bubba said:
If you deny that the passage is an accurate record of what it claims to be -- that is, a record of what God commanded -- then you deny its authority as divine revelation.
Says you.
The Bible does not tell me so. God does not tell me so. Rather, Human tradition and personal opinion form this opinion. And you're welcome to it. I just don't agree. Strongly so.
I think to say that we MUST affirm that God sometimes commands people to kill innocent children does infinitely more damage to God's divine revelation than any approach I've supported and blasphemes God's very nature.
Marty asks a - perhaps THE - perfect question: IF we affirm that "If the Bible says God did X," then how do we determine when X is appropriate for us? IF the bible says that God commands killing children, on what basis would we say that killing children is wrong? IF the Bible says that women must be silent in meetings and submissive to men, then on what basis would we decide it's okay for women to make their own decisions? If the Bible says slavery is okay, then on what basis would we ever reject slavery as an affront to humanity and to God's very nature?
If we say, as I think those in your camp would say, "Well, we look at the Bible as a whole - sometimes teachings evolve or were specific to a particular people," then, for instance, we would still be stuck with slavery. No where in the Bible does the teaching on slavery evolve beyond "be good servants and masters must be kind masters." An improvement to be sure, but not a rejection of slavery.
Better, says I, to acknowledge that some actions are just wrong and an offense to God's nature than to have this subjective, "well it may be wrong sometimes, but not always..." and leaving it up to whim and whimsy to determine when it is wrong and when it is right.
Dan, I think exegesis can give a very good indication of whether a teaching was given to a particular person or group under particular circumstances, or whether it's universal. God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but there's no indication that God gave a similar command to the entire world.
What about the salvation story, which Marty mentions? "God so loves the world... that anyone who believes won't perish." Between that and the Great Commission, it's hard to see how the universal scope of the Gospel could be more clear.
You say that my position is due to human tradition and personal opinion, but you don't how your own position is strictly derived from Scripture.
You're quite overt in this.
Better, says I, to acknowledge that some actions are just wrong and an offense to God's nature than to have this subjective, "well it may be wrong sometimes, but not always..." and leaving it up to whim and whimsy to determine when it is wrong and when it is right.
Better, "says you." Well, what does the Bible say? Does the Bible say that some actions are always wrong and that those passages to the contrary may be blasphemous?
For what it's worth, I don't appeal to whim and whimsy. I appeal to the entire Bible; you deny that I do, but you don't explain how your own position can be justified by what the Bible teaches.
And, not for the first time, you've made the extremely serious charge of blasphemy and implied that the charge could be applied to parts of the Bible.
I think to say that we MUST affirm that God sometimes commands people to kill innocent children does infinitely more damage to God's divine revelation than any approach I've supported and blasphemes God's very nature.
Please be clear: Is Genesis 22 blasphemous?
Did Moses (or, whoever wrote the passge; I think it was Moses) blaspheme when he wrote this passage?
Or is it the case that it's just the reader who blasphemes if he thinks that God really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? If that interpretation is blasphemous, just what interpretation is correct?
Is Jesus guilty of blasphemy when He affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke, implicitly including this particular passage from the Torah?
And is the writer of Hebrews guilty of blasphemy when, in chapter 11, he actually praises Abraham for his faith in obeying God's command to sacrifice Isaac?
Your accusation of blasphemy seems to fit precisely what Genesis 22 does, that is, attributing a difficult command to a divine origin. I'd like to know if you think the charge of blasphemy applies to this passage's author and the writers who seemed to affirm this passage, or whether the charge is only limited to present-day inerrantists who affirm this passage's divine origin.
Certainly, the Bible contains difficult passages: Jesus Himself taught very difficult things, including affirming the Bible to the smallest penstroke, implicitly including the difficult passages.
Does this difficulty increase the risk that someone will reject Christianity altogether? Probably, but we know the road to life is narrow, and the Bible teaches that even the central claims of Christianity are stumbling blocks to people.
But this also increases the opportunity for faith, for trusting God and His written revelation even if we don't completely understand it.
I think it's far, far safer spiritually to take the Bible as it is and try to understand it as best we can than to presume to edit what God has revealed through Moses, David, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, and John.
But the thing is, Bubba, that you DO edit. We all do.
Please be clear: Is Genesis 22 blasphemous?
Did Moses (or, whoever wrote the passge; I think it was Moses) blaspheme when he wrote this passage?
I don't think writing the story thusly is blasphemy.
I think telling folk that sometimes God tells us to kill children is blasphemy. I'm saying taking that story as a Model of how to raise children is atrocious. Taking that story as a metaphor as to how deeply and seriously we ought to take following God is one thing - not unlike Jesus telling us if we are to follow him we must hate our families. We aren't seriously to hate our families. Nor are we to seriously think that God might tell us to kill a child.
I'm not saying Genesis 22 is a model for child-rearing, nor am I saying that "God might tell us to kill a child."
It's not, might God tell us to kill our child? (One might as well ask, might God make the same covenant with us as He did with Abraham?)
The question is, did He actually and historically tell Abraham to sacrifice his son?
You seem to think that God did no such thing, that even though the Torah is written as history -- and not as hyperbole that Jesus occasionally used in His public teaching -- we must regard it as mere metaphor.
Do I misunderstand?
"The question is, did He actually and historically tell Abraham to sacrifice his son?"
Honestly? I. Don't. Know. I am hoping this is a metaphor regarding faith because the alternative is just too horrifying for me.
Yes, I agree with Marty. I can't say with 100% certainty, but I can say that God does not go around telling people to kill children. Their's or anyone else's.
Again, the best response - if this were an actual historical story - would have been for Abraham to say, "I don't know what voices I'm hearing right now, but I DO know that my God would not tell people to kill children!"
If someone heard god's voice telling them to kill children today, I'd pray that this would be their answer. Any other answer would be a horror story.
As to how we regard it, I don't care much HOW you regard it as long as you don't regard it as saying that sometimes God tells people to kill children and seriously expects them to do so. THAT is what I find blasphemous.
There's not much I can say in response to that, except for three things.
First, I ask (again) for evidence that the Bible treats Genesis 22 as anything other than "an actual historical story."
Second, in the absence of an answer, I'll tie this back to the question of patriarchy in the Bible (and the subject of economics and the Bible, which spurred this discussion): I frankly don't understand why you appeal to the Bible on some issues when, by all appearances, you reject much of what is written as atrocity and bigotry -- things that can be chalked up to human flaws or cultural mores, and things that must be understood as metaphorical even in an absence of any textual justification.
Finally, I agree that Genesis 22 is difficult, but I don't think it's any more difficult than the central claims of Christianity. On the one hand, God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, but God stopped him in time. On the other, God really did sacrifice His own Son: the Son died a horrific, shameful death because nothing else would provide us with the forgiveness of sin and the provision of eternal life.
I see the same it-must-be-metaphorical outrage that you have regarding the binding of Isaac that strident atheists have regarding the cross: God would never do such a thing, what a "horror story."
I'm not saying you have rejected or will reject Christianity, but a whole-cloth rejection of Christianity's central historical claims is a logical end to your approach to Scripture. In the way you dismiss the atonement as something that "meant something" only to ancient Jews, and in the way you dance around the question of causality between His death and our forgiveness, it makes me wonder if, even now, you have trouble accepting the Father's culpability in sending the Son to die.
The discussion of women's roles and even the discussion regarding inerrancy may end up being mere skirmishes in a much larger discussion.
Bubba, for what it's worth, I do see your point.
For scads more resources:
Christians for Biblical Equality
and their bookstore Equality Depot
Bubba said:
I frankly don't understand why you appeal to the Bible on some issues when, by all appearances, you reject much of what is written as atrocity and bigotry -- things that can be chalked up to human flaws or cultural mores
I reject none of the Bible. I do find a FEW places where it describes God in ways that I don't think are consistent with the Bible as a whole. Maybe 30 passages? I haven't done a count.
In those relatively few passages, I reconcile the problems (with, for instance, a God that sometimes commands killing children VS a God that demands that we protect the innocent) by suggesting that those passages that seem to suggest that God sometimes commands killing children do not reflect God as the rest of the Bible portrays God. I further state that I don't think those passages reflect God's nature accurately.
I'll own up to being willing to say that I don't know perfectly WHAT to do with those verses. BEYOND noting that they do not reflect God's nature as the rest of the Bible and as our own God-given reasoning teaches us.
But again, that is in a relatively few places. I don't "reject much of what is written." I think the Bible is amazingly consistent in its teachings front to back. The Great Truths of the Bible.
Those great truths that I think the whole Bible consistently teaches are nothing controversial from an orthodox point of view:
1. That we are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus
2. That "faith in Jesus" implies acceptance of his teachings - merely believing that Jesus is the Son of God who died and was resurrected ain't that big a deal, the Bible tells us, even the demons believe that
3. That we are to love God
4. That we are to love People
5. That this world is God's creation
6. That we are to lovingly treat God's creation (including humanity) with respect and care
7. That we are to side with and support the least of these
8. That we are to side against oppression, thievery, cheating, lying, killing, injustice, etc.
These are the great truths that I think the Bible consistently teaches and I find supported from front to back in the Bible. That I don't think a few dozen verses perfectly reflect God's nature is not that big a deal. For instance, we agree (I'm sure) that just because some behaviors are listed as being done by God's People or even a "man after God's own heart" does not mean that such behavior is desirable or to be emulated. David having multiple wives does not mean that is a model for us to emulate (even when passages suggest that God "gave" David all his wives and concubines).
From an orthodox Christian point of view, those who believe as I do are just not that exceptional. From a fundamentalist and even some traditionalist evangelical points of view, I fully understand that my suggestion that a few verses DON'T adequately describe God's nature is tantamount to heresy, but that's more of the traditions of those fundamentalist/evangelical groups than it is a probably with orthodoxy or orthopraxy.
Than it is a PROBLEM with orthodoxy, not "probably."
While I'm at it, these same fundamentalists and some evangelicals would have a problem with those who think that Genesis 1 is not to be taken as a literal science lesson on how the world began. For these types of Christians, suggesting that we can glean the Big Truth that God created the world without also accepting that it HAD to happen in six literal days is tantamount to heresy. It is a rejection of the Bible, much as Bubba seems to think I reject large swaths of the Bible.
But it is not. It is another interpretation, another approach to reading the Bible that has nothing to do with Christian orthodoxy.
One more comment - in direct rebuttal to Michael Westmoreland-White's first comment.
He said that "kephale" means "source" and not "head over" in 1 Cor. 3:11 and Eph. 5:23.
However, this false teaching has been thorougly rebutted by one of the greatest Baptist Evangelical scholars in the world, and so far, the rebuttal has not been answered. Maybe Michael will want to offer a full rebuttal instead of continuing to repeat speculative conclusions that have been shown to be false.
Here is the article by Dr. Wayne Grudem:
Does Kephale (“Head”) Mean “Source” Or “Authority Over” in Greek Literature?
A Survey of 2,336 Examples
His conlusion:
The survey of instances of kephale used to mean “authority over” is complete. If we were to go beyond the time of the New Testament into the Patristic writings (only two of our extrabiblical quotations in the list above came from after the first century A.D.), we could greatly expand this list of examples. The use of kephale to mean “authority over” is common in the early church Fathers. But this survey is probably sufficient to demonstrate that “source, origin” is nowhere clearly attested as a legitimate meaning for kephale, and that the meaning “ruler, authority over” has sufficient attestation to establish it clearly as a legitimate sense for kephale in Greek literature at the time of the New Testament. Indeed, it was a well-established
and recognizable meaning, and it is the meaning that best suits the New Testament texts that speak of the relationship between men and women by saying that the man is the “head” of a woman and the husband is the “head” of the wife.
30? Try hundreds. First, you have to outright reject every time God tells Israel to destroy every man, woman, and child in Canaan because of their idolatry
Thanks, Daniel. You may be right, as noted, I have not done a count.
But I only say you MAY be right because an awful lot of these passages are more of a description of the people of Israel presuming to act on what they think God says, rather than instances of God actually saying, "Go and destroy that village and kill their children." For instance, in the Psalms that you mention, you oftentimes have people praying, "Oh Lord, go and destroy mine enemy..." kinds of prayers. Which is an indication of how that person felt, but is NOT an indication of how God feels necessarily.
Good to hear from you, even if you're wrong...
Actually Dan,
There are not an "aweful lot" of passages where the Israelites presume. In fact, in most of those cases, there is the clear formula "And the Lord said," invoked (I can give you all the references if you like). And either the Lord said, or the Bible is wrong. And if the writers of the Bible are wrong there, how can we be sure that the writers of the Bible weren't wrong when they recorded, "And Jesus said,"?
Seems to me there are two objective choices:
1) Accept all of the Bible as true an authortitative, having been inspired by the Holy Spirit.
or
2) Accept all of the Bible may be false, none of which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Your choice, however, seems to be to reject both objective choices in favor of a subjective choice:
Accept the parts that most seem like they reflect what I believe are true about God and reject those that don't conform to my opinion.
The problem with that is that the Bible is self-revelatory. You can only gain an opinion about God from the very source you must reject in part in order to obtain that very opinion.
Do you not see the serious logical flaw in your line of thinking here?
Oh, and answering this question doesn't take you off the hook for the previous questions you never answered.
There is certainly a flaw in my approach - the possibility (and likelihood!) of human error. Same as in your approach, brother.
I'd suggest though that we are not "Only" limited to revelation of God from the Bible. God says (in the Bible, oddly enough!) that all of creation declares God's glory. We have God's law "written on our hearts," the Bible tells us. God's own Spirit reveals God to us.
IF we accept the Bible as revelation, then we must also accept that it is not our only source of revelation - IF, we indeed, trust what it has to say in at least these certain passages.
I do.
As flawed as your approach may be Dan, it is certainly more humble than the alternative. You summarized it really well in those 8 points above. If we stick to that approach, perhaps the judgementalism of fundamentalism can be avoided.
As to the numbers of when God speaks for commanding violence VS when the Israeli take violent actions apart from God's command, I don't know the numbers for sure. From my reading, I suspect that the number of acts of violence taken without a "Thus saith the Lord" outnumbers the commanded violence.
Just a hunch based on my readings. I reckon to prove it, we'd have to look at all the incidences of violence - specifically the ones where children are killed, to address my more specific complaint - and see how many are done after "Thus saith the Lord," and how many are just done, with the non-explicit assumption being that God wanted it.
I'm not especially concerned about how the numbers work out, though. My point is that some actions are wrong and that God would not command people to do those actions.
I do find it odd how the conservatives want to stake their claim on the side of "Sometimes God orders us to kill children."
I mean, if that's the case, then on what basis would you oppose abortion? After all, perhaps God told those families that this was God's Will. And if we have established that sometimes God might command such an action, then that leaves you without a firm footing to stand on.
That's the problem with moral relativism. (I love it when our roles get all jumbledy.)
Thanks, Marty.
DR said:
Seems to me there are two objective choices:
1) Accept all of the Bible as true an authortitative, having been inspired by the Holy Spirit.
or
2) Accept all of the Bible may be false, none of which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps, I'd reckon there are more permutations than just those two. After all, I accept the Bible as true and authoritative, inspired by the Holy Spirit; depending on what you mean by those words.
Authoritative:
1. having due authority; having the sanction or weight of authority: an authoritative opinion.
2. substantiated or supported by documentary evidence and accepted by most authorities in a field
But that doesn't mean that I think each line is a perfect representation of a Holy and Mysterious God.
Further, besides your second option (Accept all of the Bible may be false, none of which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.), one can think that:
3. All of the Bible may not be clearly apparent to us and we may be unable to discern perfectly God's Will in those Spirit-inspired words.
For instance. There may be other possibilities, if I pondered on it long enough.
AGGGGHHH...
Just lost a big ol' response.
later.
I had a much longer comment to make in which I addressed what I think were DR's questions, among other things, but Blogger burped and ate it all. I'm all out of time for now, working on a big project that needs to get done.
Here's what questions I think ER found to be problematic:
you would know nothing of Jesus without the Bible, so how can you trust a book that produced lies in one portion and truth in another? What is truth and what is lies? Is it merely subjective to your presuppositions? How can we know what is presupposition and what is objective truth?...
And I had addressed them in more detail but in brief, my position is that this is our world in which we live. The Bible tells us, "now we know in part," we don't know things perfectly.
If the Bible were perfectly literally correct (something no one is claiming it is), we would STILL have difficulties understanding it. We'd still get some things wrong because we are not perfectly omniscient. Some of us more so than others!
I recognize that reality in our human condition. It is the way it is.
So, what is Truth? What are lies? Truth is what God says it is, I reckon. Truth is what IS, I reckon. But we simply don't always know perfect Truth.
We have helps, though. Books of wisdom, especially the Bible - at least for some of us, God's Spirit revealing Truth to us, all of nature testifying to God, our own God-given reason and the Law of God written upon our hearts.
We take these things and strive to follow God and live in Truth the best we can. What else is there?
Some source of perfectly understandable objective Truth that we can't get wrong? It doesn't exist.
The Bible tells us that "all scripture" (and the Bible doesn't tell us what it means by "all scripture," but we always assume it means specifically the Torah and by extension the Bible that human tradition selected out, but that is our take on it - not a Divine Word from a Perfect Bible) - the bible tells us "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." and I believe that absolutely.
But that doesn't mean that, if the Bible says, "God tells people sometimes to kill children," that the obvious and literal meaning of that line is a perfect illumination on God's Character. The Bible does not make that claim.
Jesus, who DID know the OT very well (and what a great bunch of wisdom is found therein!) did not make that claim.
It is a human tradition that says each line must represent God perfectly and if it says God said rape puppy dogs, then dang it! sometimes we might have to rape puppy dogs!
Many of us prefer things black and white like that. "Either the Bible is 100% right as I understand it or its useless. Either that line that says God sometimes commands people to kill children is perfectly right or the Bible is useless!"
I don't think that. I believe fully, along with the Apostle Paul, that it is inspired and useful for instruction. But dang it, it's a fallen world and we don't know things perfectly.
That's just the way it is. For now, we see through a glass darkly.
Thank God for God's Revelation in ALL its various forms. Thank God for God's Grace.
Let me reframe this one more way, and let me use the instance of killing children as an example:
1. In the Bible, we have this story of God commanding Israel to kill children
2. However, in the Bible, we also have teachings showing us that killing innocents is wrong
3. We also have our own sense of God within - God's Law written on our hearts, the Spirit testifying to us of Truth - telling us that killing children is wrong
4. Therefore, we have a conflict, one which we all have to reconcile or do something with
5. Bubba, DR and their camp feel uncomfortable saying, "This does not represent God's Nature well" about a passage that says, "Thus saith the Lord, Kill their boy children and take home their virgin girls to be your wives..." - neither do they feel comfortable saying, "I don't know WHAT to do with that sort of passage!"
And this is the important part:
6. This leaves them in the uncomfortable position of saying, "If the Bible SAYS Thus saith the Lord, Kill their boy children and take home their virgin girls to be your wives..., then that's JUST WHAT IT MEANS - that literally God sometimes may order the slaughter of boy children and the kidnapping of virgin girls so they can be made into wives of the soldiers who just slaughtered their family"
7. Dan and his camp IS comfortable with saying either "This does not represent God's Nature well" about a passage that says, "Thus saith the Lord, Kill their boy children and take home their virgin girls to be your wives..." OR with saying, "I don't know WHAT to do with that sort of passage, BUT CLEARLY, God does not go around telling people to kill children."
Is that a fair summation, in those last two points? I think it is, from where I sit.
And when I say, "uncomfortable," I'm not talking about "ooh, I don't like the way that sounds, it's all yucky!" I mean, I don't think that one can comfortably accommodate that view (Point Six) by looking at the whole of the Bible.
I think if you look at the whole of the Bible, examining the individual passages through the whole, examining the whole in light of what Jesus taught, considering the more difficult through the lens of the more obvious, one can not comfortably accommodate Point Six, from a theological or logical point of view.
Some truths are self-evident, a wise man once said. I agree, and "God does not command the killing of children" is one of those.
Dan,
One more serious arguement and 4 important questions for you:
You argue that those who wrote the OT inserted into it claims that God told them to kill the Canaanites and others. These are all found in the Torah, claimed to have been written by Moses (even Jesus claimed this). Now, Jesus had the Torah in pretty much the same exact format as we do today (and He even read from the Septuagint, which is almost word for word what we have in those passages in the Pentateuch). So here are my questions:
If the idea that God literally told the Israelites to kill is so "blasphemous" to God, and these are clear insertions in the text by either Moses or later writers, why didn't Jesus address this, and why did He instead affirm the entire OT?
A corollary to that:
If Moses misinterpreted God or if He blasphemously accused God of telling them to kill all the Canaanites, why does Jesus celebrate his life and allow Moses to be with Him at His transfiguration)? Why wouldn't Jesus attempt to rebuke or correct Him for his blasphemous sin?
Those are serious questions you must answer Dan. But let's go further:
Why didn't the apostles correct this abherrant teaching in the OT, especially Paul (who was trained for 2 years directly by the Holy Spirit in the wilderness) with their writings?
And one more:
Why would the Holy Spirit wait 2000 years before deciding to reveal your viewpoint to Christians, when this obviously changes the complexion of the character of God and is (or at least you've claim) "blasphemous"?
Serious questions Dan, demand serious answers. Let's see if you have any.
Ah, ah, ahhh... I asked you first:
6. This leaves them in the uncomfortable position of saying, "If the Bible SAYS Thus saith the Lord, Kill their boy children and take home their virgin girls to be your wives..., then that's JUST WHAT IT MEANS - that literally God sometimes may order the slaughter of boy children and the kidnapping of virgin girls so they can be made into wives of the soldiers who just slaughtered their family"
7. Dan and his camp IS comfortable with saying either "This does not represent God's Nature well" about a passage that says, "Thus saith the Lord, Kill their boy children and take home their virgin girls to be your wives..." OR with saying, "I don't know WHAT to do with that sort of passage, BUT CLEARLY, God does not go around telling people to kill children."
Is that a fair summation, in those last two points? I think it is, from where I sit.
And my question (and summation of our differences) also explains my answer to you. I'm okay with saying, "I don't know all your answers.
What I do know is that God doesn't command people to kill children. Is that the place where you want to stake YOUR position on God - that is, you'd rather say that sometimes God commands killing children than to say, I don't know what to do with those passages?
You're arguing that God changes. That in the past, if I understand you correctly, God said it was okay for me to command people to kill children. Today, God WOULDN'T command people to kill children.
Upon what biblical basis would you build that house? Where did God say, "I've changed my approach..."?
And at least one correction:
What you have tried to do is suggest one must make that command [God sometimes commands killing children] apply to all generations, which He has not done, nor have we claimed He has. That is a false assertion of our position.
Well, it might be IF I had made such an assertion, but I have not made that assertion.
It's an honest mistake on your part, though, I'm sure. These things happen when we get in BIG and important conversations.
"God's command to the Israelites to kill all those in the land for their idolatry does not translate to Him calling us to do the same."
Newsflash:
There are those who believe God most certainly does call us to do the same today. They think that Israel didn't obey God in the first place. The church where I work is full of those who believe this. I know. I've been in Bible studies with them. They say had Israel taken care of those Muslims when God told them to, we wouldn't have to be doing it today. They have no problem wiping all Muslims off the face of the earth.. right now... today.
"My prayer is that through all of this, God will one day open your eyes to see His truth, to see the beauty of accepting all of Scripture - to see a vision of God that is both WRATHFUL and LOVING, a true vision of God - so that you might repent and cease from leading those who listen to you astray."
Translation:
Dan... you cease and desist... you unbelieving heathen Bible hater. You have been judged. You reprobate.
The judgementalism of fundamentalism at it's best.
Marty,
You said:
Newsflash:
There are those who believe God most certainly does call us to do the same today. They think that Israel didn't obey God in the first place. The church where I work is full of those who believe this. I know. I've been in Bible studies with them. They say had Israel taken care of those Muslims when God told them to, we wouldn't have to be doing it today. They have no problem wiping all Muslims off the face of the earth.. right now... today.
That certainly is a newsflash. I don't know who these people are, but if you have interpreted them correctly, then I consider their teaching to be abhorrant. First, Muslims didn't exist at the time of Israel. And God didn't command the Israelites to kill them. In fact, He commanded them to leave the Ishmaelites alone alone. So those folks are wrong - flat wrong. And so are any who claim that we must kill Muslims today for their religious beliefs. On the contrary, we should be laying down our lives for them - that they might hear and believe the Gospel - their only hope for salvation. And I know many who are doing this exact thing - pouring out their lives so that Muslims can have Jesus Christ - the hope of salvation. I hope you would join me in praying for them and praying that God would save many Muslims for the sake of His name and for their everlasting joy.
Secondly, Marty, you have misjudged my prayer for Dan. First, I have said nothing that the Apostle Paul didn't say about false teachers. I believe Dan to be a false teacher. So it is my duty to call Him to repent and to pray for that repentence. You don't know how I grieve for men like Him and for those who listen to his false teaching. You assume I am judgemental. But what of you? Are you not judging me for my attempt to seek the face of God and be true to my calling? In the end one of us is wrong. I stand upon the Word of God and 2000 years of Church History. Dan stands upon his feelings about God garnered from the very Book he must reject to find them. Thus, I do call him to repent and all who reject the Word of the Lord. But in doing so I earnestly pray that God would change their hearts and lead them to the truth. If I did not, I would certainly not be loving.
There is SO much to deal with here and I honestly don't have time, but I am certainly wanting to.
Let me take a stab at this one:
NO TRUE EVANGELICAL would say that God is telling us to kill anyone TODAY.
Newsflash: Many evangelicals believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and the targeting of those civilians - including the children - was a Good and even Godly thing. I don't know if you're in that camp, but certainly that is something that I don't think you'll disagree is supported by many evangelicals.
I think one of the questions that got skipped earlier was "what about slavery?"
Slavery was endorsed by God in the OT, it describes how to do it right - even selling one's daughter!
Nowhere in the Bible does the Bible back away from that position. Over in the NT, Paul admonishes slaves to be "good slaves, obedient to their masters."
This is not a good and valid teaching for today.
Now, I don't know what you do with this kind of passage. WAS slavery within God's will and now it isn't? Was slavery within what God would allow for those people then, but now God doesn't? A slow revelation of God that emerges over time?
Perhaps, the idea might have some merit. It is in extrabiblical idea, but it IS one way to weasel our way around the reality that slavery is endorsed by God in the OT and not opposed in the NT. I'm not saying it is a bad way of logically explaining why slavery was acceptable then, but not now. I'm just noting its extrabiblical nature.
But, if God's revelation is INDEED unfolding, as you put it, changing over time, allowing for changes in humanity and cultures (and how in the world would you explain God "giving" David all his polygamous wives?) over time, well, that's one way of explaining things. But it IS extrabiblical.
Similarly, to say that God's revelation was unfolding over time - what was okay in the OT is no longer acceptable in the NT - then it is ALSO extrabiblical to say that "...AND God's revelation STOPPED unfolding with Jesus and the book of Revelation.
But if we do that, what of slavery, still? We now (I think, I hope) all agree that slavery is an affront to our human nature and to God's nature. It would be ridiculous for anyone to tell a slave today, "Well, just be a good slave and obey the master and all will be good in the sweet by and by..." It would be HORRENDOUS to say such a thing!
Are we agreed on that?
But where do we get the authority to do that? God's Revelation stopped unfolding after Jesus, I believe you would say.
And I don't know WHAT you would do with that, but feel free to take a whack at it.
Finally, I don't know if anabaptists think as you suggest we do about God's revelation - certainly not all anabaptists do - but even if they did, God's Word is clear:
ALL OF CREATION tells of the glory of God!
God's Law is written on our hearts.
God will send God's Spirit.
Sorry for the admittedly hurried and jumbled mess of explanations, truly I am, but I am very short on time. Make of it what you will.
Peace.
"That certainly is a newsflash. I don't know who these people are, but if you have interpreted them correctly, then I consider their teaching to be abhorrant."
They are "Bible believing Southern Baptist Christians" DR. It is possible they are in your church as well. One, in particular, was a pastor that I used to work with when my son was serving in Iraq. I am glad to see you find this teaching abhorrant. So do I.
"Secondly, Marty, you have misjudged my prayer for Dan."
Have I?
You have the power to look into Dan's heart and see what is there?
Dan has repeatedly confessed his faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Who are you to stand in judgement of that?
DR, I'd like to say something else to you after a night's sleep. Truly it would be beneficial for you to read the comments Bubba has made here and on the other thread. He has done an outstanding job of getting his point across and he's done it with grace in my opinion. I've really appreciated his attitude of late and you could take a lesson or two from him.
Now Bubba I just hope you will continue in this manner so we all can learn and share with one another.
Peace.
Marty,
What I find interesting about you is that you continue to berate me for my supposed attitude, and you continue to feel you can interpret my heart in how I write my posts, yet, aren't you judging me in even saying these things?
Seriously, think about it. You are telling me how I judge others and saying things about me like:
"The judgementalism of fundamentalism at it's best."
"I've really appreciated his attitude of late and you could take a lesson or two from him."
You know, I really don't see a difference in what you are accusing me of and the attitude you display in your accusations toward me. Both apparently involve a level of judgement beyond one's ability to peer. So, in a way, you are judging me for doing the exact same thing you are doing.
Now, I have no reason to argue with you Marty. I actually AGREED with you earlier, yet you felt compelled to pass judgment on what my comments meant - you peered into MY heart to tell me what I meant by my prayer. And when I suggested you may have misjudged me, you redoubled your efforts, insinuating that I believed I had "the power to look into Dan's heart and see what is there?"
Then told me that "Dan has repeatedly confessed his faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Who are you to stand in judgement of that?"
Well, Marty, let me give you some Scripture to think on. I'll just post the references, so you can look them up.
Matthew 7:1-5
Matthew 18:15-17
James 5:19-20
1 Cor. 5:12 (very important passage - and the answer to Paul's question is "yes", btw.)
So Marty, again, I am simply doing what I feel called to do by the Lord. According to your own proposition and Dan's understanding of personal revelation:
Who are you to judge me?
Matthew 7:1-5..Yep we've both done that!
Matthew 18:15-37. Ok. We've done that. Are we square now?
But...
I don't judge your salvation nor accuse you of being a false teacher who leads others astray. I would never presume to do that even if we disagree. Therein lies the difference 'tween thee and me. You say you have placed your faith in Christ as your Lord and Savior. So says Dan. Each of you has a different approach. That is of no concern to me. I prefer Dan's to yours. But what of it? I accept both of you on your word and as my brothers in Christ. I can do no other. For I do not have the power within me to do otherwise.
1 Cor 5:12 is within the context of sexual immorality.
James 5:19...We are all sinners wandering around. But thanks be to God for his mercy and his grace.
John 3:16
May the Peace of Christ be with you.
I find it interesting that the comments on this piece are from men. Perhaps women have all worked this out for themselves long ago. Yes, the Bible is often sexist, reflecting the men who wrote down and translated it. It does not reflect accurately the inspiriation of the One who gave it to us, who is definitely not sexist.
An interesting resource for you all might be The Women's Bible Commentary by Carole Newsome.
God told us a story we wrote in down in a book (and then began hitting each other with it)
Ummm, Marty is a woman and a mother.
And a fine, fine woman, mother and human being, at that.
Also, "brd" who has made some comments here is yet another fine human being of the female persuasion.
But thanks for the note and the recommendation about the book, I believe I've heard of it before, but have not read it. I'll look into it.
Post a Comment